Talk:India/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

strange

do u guys see the naked image in the infobox? i am not kidding. i am able to see the image and i cant find who added it. what is happening? it disappeared now. it is crazy. i cant find who added it and who removed it. --CarTick (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The vandalism was not on the India page directly, but on {{Indian Rupee}}, which is transcluded onto this page. I have reverted the vandalism. Quigley (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

i did check that page. may be i checked it just after u removed. i was about to believe i was delusional. --CarTick (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Rename BRIC to BRICS

The organisation naming BRIC does not exist anymore officially as it has been reworded to BRICS with South Africa included officially from this year 2011. Hence could anyone who edits India article re-word the BRIC to BRICS. As this is an encylopedia and its updated very frequently and is updated day to day, I want to be changed as the acronym BRIC is outdated in economics and in reality. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.189.232 (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Article editing

Why is the subject of foreign relation and Military termed together. They are two different subjects. I should add bu combining two article into one - foreign relations is fine written but the part of military has been too condensed and too reduced into very little information. I suggest for separation of two different article. One heading should be foreign relations and the other should be Military.

In the intro of article, it seems someone has deleted that India is a part of WTO and G-20. BRICS is there but the other two has been deleted. Please include them too as all articles of other countries has mentioned them in the introduction itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.160.85 (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The current section mixes information from all fields, with the joint section effectively covering the relationship with China and Pakistan etc. without a need for repetition. What information is missing? As for the intro, the WTO and G-20 are not unique for India at all, and probably not necessary in the lead. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking if more information was given like facts on r+d spent indigenous and outside India for modernization of India's Armed forces. And how much would India be spending of its armed forces in like 5 to 10 years from now or where would it reach then.

A mention of R+D and modernisation does sound important, especially as it increases its regional influence in the Indian Ocean. Do you have sources about this? If so, feel free to add the information! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• India increased annual defence spending by 11.6 percent in 2011 for buying and buildup of military hardware to beef up defences in the air as well as in the Indian Ocean.

• The official Indian defence budget for 2011 stands at US$36.03 billion (or 1.83% of GDP). This is what has been mentioned in the section of "Foreign relations and military" India article. The figure of the percent spent is quite misguided to keep neighbouring countries of India guessing the real figure and not giving an exact position of where India is in R&D and spending. However you should add a major point in continuation (listed below)
  • India masks a number of allocations that are universally regarded as defence expenditure. Taking the figure of Rs 235,962 crore as the real defence allocation, the government has actually allocated 3.16 per cent of GDP (instead of 1.83% of GDP it portrays to the world and China. India is as secretive like Chinese Armed Forces) and 18.76 per cent of government spending to defence.

• India's defence expenditure will increase "in proportion" with its economic growth rate. Hence, India is expected to spend around USD 50 billion in next 20 years for acquiring weapons for its armed forces.

• India's defence spending will touch US$80 bn by 2015 and its defence expenditure will be around US$112 billion by 2016.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.181.67 (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

India Article: Construction

The history section of India is undergoing a great exploration into India's history. I am thinking that either little or no information is given on India's partition i.e. cutting off the country into two which is now one is Pakistan. I w3as thinking if this could be mentioned either in either the introduction of the whole article of India or either the section of Modern India.

The facts from history are very clear: "india lost its part due to partition. The crappy fact is that the border was drawn by a London lawyer, Cyril Radcliffe, 1st Viscount Radcliffe. Appointed head of the Boundary Commission on June 3 1947, and at that time he saw the map of India for the first time. The border between India and Pakistan is now called as the Radcliffe Line." This is exactly how the history unfolded but don't word as I have worded it but you get the idea. This history has to be mentioned.

We should include on how India was divided and who authorized this and who created the border and on what measure was the line of boundary drawn by Sir Cyril Radcliffe. The point I am making is in the article somewhere either in Intro or in the history section we have to mention two things i.e. Cyril Radcliffe, 1st Viscount Radcliffe and the Radcliffe Line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.177.222 (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Replacing Su-30 MKI image with Tejas

Developed by Aeronautical Development Agency and manufactured by Hindustan Aeronautics, the HAL Tejas is the lightest fighter modern aircraft in the world.

The Su-30 MKI is a Russian aircraft that has been purchased by India. Yes many components in it are made in India. But still the Su-30 merit it's place in the Russia article rather than in the Indian page. India's own development is the Tejas aircraft. And hence Su-30 image be replaced by Tejas.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Dont agree, the image is being in the Foreign relations and military section and as such the SU-30 is a good example of Indian operational equipment and co-operation with Russia. The Tejas is home-grown and not in service so really doesnt fit the bill. As an aside is the Tejas really lighter than the Gnat/Ajeet! MilborneOne (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If the "foreign relations and military section" need to be correctly represented, why not have an image of a defense product that India exports rather than have something that's being imported or license produced? Why not the Dhruv helicopter? And for Tejas the IOC has taken place. Since gnat is not flying, the correction can be "the lightest modern fighter aircraft in the world".Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all why is foreign relations section coupled with defense? There is no logic at all for it.

Then there is this suggestion of why not the picture of fighter jet Su-30 MKI, developed in cooperation with Russia, which makes no sense unless foreign relations topic is mixed with defense section.

According to me, there should be two separate sections - 1. Foreign relations 2. Defense. - for much thorough article. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.183.172.25, 5 June 2011

76.183.172.25 (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 18:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Sameer101286, 6 June 2011

Under Strength of the country(India) it says that It has the third-largest standing army in the world but it is actually the largest volunteer standing army in the world.

Ref: indianarmy.nic.in/ Sameer101286 (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the section you're talking about. Are you sure you have the right article? Also, see the references at Indian Army; in general, primary sources are less desirable than secondary sources. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 14:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

The below information added by me on India has been reverted:

The word Hindustan(the Land of Hind) which came from Dari language spoken in Persia is the corrupt form of Sanskrit word Sindh pradesh(the Land of Sindh). The language of Sindh called Sindhi was called Hindi in dari language. Sindh was called hind and people were called Hindu from the name of the river Sindhu.

Can anybody tell me what is wrong in above information? Above information is true to the best of my knowledge even though I don't have any reference at present but that doesn't means that information can't be added. If anybody has any problem which he can show by contrary reference then I shall not revert that change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrihr (talk • contribs) 17:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, it is required that the statements are to be backed up by 'reliable secondary sources'. India page is also a 'featured article', requiring a watertight case for truths in the form of 'multiple well-known' secondary sources along with unique requirements of 'consistent reporting in media', often also requiring presence of consensus & 'absence of no consensus', a general ability to respond to repeated incorrect misplaced assertions from different users(a few uninformed ones could throw their own incorrect assertions randomly) at different times and subsequent answering to moderators on facts presented repeatedly to different users at different times. Don't lose your heart, welcome to Wikipedia! ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Thisthat's comments. Welcome to Wiki. --BweeB (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Even though I was not able to understand you completely still I welcome your suggestion. I believe that every line that we put in the article need not have corresponding reference. Second, reference can be put by some other contributor because only through combined contribution Wikipedia has been able to reach so far. Third, what I said is neither something alien nor contrary to something already written. Rest do what you like. Hrihr (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.28.172.69, 7 June 2011

|image_map_caption = Maurya Empire at its maximum extent (Dark Blue), including its vassals (Light Blue). |capital = Pataliputra

98.28.172.69 (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Please be specific on what has to be changed/added. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 02:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me know if this edit is fine. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

History

Under the rule of Akbar the Great, India enjoyed much cultural and economic progress as well as religious harmony. The Mughals also forged a strategic alliance with several Hindu Rajputs kingdoms. However, some Rajput kings, such as Maha Rana Pratap, continued to pose significant threat to Mughal dominance of northwestern India. Additionally, regional empires in southern and northeastern India, such as the Ahoms of Assam, successfully resisted Mughal subjugation. Shah Jahan, the fifth emperor, reign was the golden age of Mughal architecture. He erected many splendid monuments, the most famous of which is the legendary Taj Mahal at Agra as well as Pearl Mosque, the Red Fort, Jama Masjid Mosque, Lahore Fort and a mosque in Thatta. The reign of Aurangzeb saw the enforcement of strict Muslim fundamentalism which caused rebellions among the Sikhs and Hindu Rajputs. By early 1700s, the Sikh Empire and the Hindu Marathas had emerged as formidable foes of the Mughals. Following the death of Aurangzeb, the Maratha Empire expanded greatly under the rule of the Peshwas, ruling most of the Indian Subcontinent by the mid-eighteenth century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.82.63 (talk) 07:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• History section needs info on:

1. Tripartite Struggle between the Rashtrakuta Empire, Pala Empire, Pratihara
2. The bulk-ward against the Islamic resulted in the emergence of Vijayanagara Empire, Gajapati Kingdom, and Rajput States.

Largest city of India

The largest city of India is Kolkata, not Mumbai as mentioned in the right-hand data corner

Current reference is -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolkata (for size of Kolkata)

AND

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai (for size of Mumbai)

Moreover, that is what I have heard from my childhood.

I request some registered user to please change the "Largest City" part.

Mumbai is the most populous city, but not the largest city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kryptoneon (talk • contribs) 19:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree as per numbers and real statistics, the real density of land and land area of the city - Kolkata should be the largest city in India not Mumbai. The external websites which state Mumbai in this regard is totally wrong. Mumbai is known as most populous, bollywood center and financial hub of India but as per size it should go to Kolkata, formerly Calcutta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.160.196 (talk) 09:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Correct Indus Valley Map

What makes the Indus Valley map correct? It has not been updated with the newer finds. (69.115.82.63 (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC))

What newer findings are you talking about? --David Fraudly (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Indus Valley Civ extends to Alamgirpur in Western Uttar Pradesh which the map does not show. Also Dholavira, Kalibanga, and Rakhigarhi are as large as Lothal, MJ or Harappa which the map fails to show or mark down (other sites as well) as you may find in others encyclopedia maps or google search. (69.115.82.63 (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC))

I think, we should update the map at a certain new level of significant discoveries. There is still lots of new stuff coming out.--David Fraudly (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Colonialism: more content needed

It would be great, if somebody would add 2 sentences how the British got ahead of all other East India Companies, especially in their struggle against the French. Currently it looks like the British were the only colonial power in India.--David Fraudly (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

wrong Maurya map

There are 2 issues with this picture. 1st, it doesn't accurately display the boundaries of the empire. According to Gbooks it was lying between the Hindukush to the west, Bengal to the east, Afg to the North and the Narmada river to the South. Especially the Southern extent, which ended at Karnataka, is very wrong displayed here. The second problem is the vassal status of the southern kingdoms. Actually Ashoka mentions the Cholas, Pandyas, Keralaputras, Satyaputras as friendly neighboors or in other words alliies. Various Gbook sources state, that these were independent kingdoms. It is clear to me, that this map was created for political propaganda by some Hindiwallas.--David Fraudly (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is a good description of the Mauryan extent: A history of India By Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund, p.70. I request to modify the file or remove it completely. --David Fraudly (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't sound unreasonable. And I note that the map itself is unsourced. I've reverted my edit (the map is removed) and it can easily be reinstated if it is shown to be correct. --rgpk (comment) 12:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this may help: File:AiKhanoumAndIndia.jpg - "The distribution of the Edicts of Ashoka.[16] is a concrete indication of the extent of Ashoka's rule. To the West, it went as far as Kandahar (where the Edicts were written in Greek and Aramaic), and bordered the contemporary Hellenistic metropolis of Ai Khanoum.". ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

ThisThat, I think the issue is what were the territorial limits of the Maurya Empire. It would be helpful if someone could produce a reference that shows these limits so that we can verify whether the original map was correct or not. I believe that the map is largely correct, but it is better to verify that independently. (I could do so later this week but add a source here, on the talk page, if you have one available.) --rgpk (comment) 15:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The same book provides the desired map: A history of India By Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund, at p.69. It's pretty clear, that the Mauryas mainly controlled trade routes with vast areas across India being actually independent.--David Fraudly (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

At User:David Fraudly, could you define what is Hindiwalla? I would like to know if I am one as per your standards please. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hindiwalla refers to people with the one nation, one language philosophy. That language being Hindi. Hindiwallas are constantly spreading the blunt lie, that Hindi was the national language of India. Hindiwallas ironically use English media to spread this lie. Hindiwallas are stupid enough to believe, that only Tamils were against Hindi as the national language. Hindiwallas basically think, that India belongs to them, and they run this country alone. This is my definition of the uneducated Hindi nationalist. I'm totally against this philosophy and the notions behind these all and the Indian majority just thinks like me. I don't want to hurt anybody on a personal level, because everyone has freedom of thought. Hindiwalla is just a common term to describe people with this ideology in India.--David Fraudly (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

All I can say is that the notion of Hindiwallas is quite contradictory. If you want to discuss it, let me know on my talk page. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, no personal discussions here please, let it be limited to user talk pages. Lynch7 15:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

History section needs info on:

1. Tripartite Struggle between the Rashtrakuta Empire, Pala Empire, Pratihara
2. The bulk-ward against the Islamic resulted in the emergence of Vijayanagara Empire, Gajapati Kingdom, and Rajput States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.82.63 (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you elaborate please? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

effected->affected

under heading Modern India effected->affected

Since the 1990s terrorist attacks have effected many Indian cities. -> Since the 1990s terrorist attacks have affected many Indian cities. Bananarama123 (talk) 02:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 03:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

BRICS

BRICs are 4 and not 5 (located at the end of the introduction to the article)

South Africa was added recently.--Malaikaran (talk) 10:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Millitary

Add more info on Indian Army, Navy and Air Force — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maitrikvora21 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Population density

According to the article, India has the World's 31st highest population density, but the link shows that it has the World's 33rd highest population density. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.23.99.202 (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

cintu

What is uncertain about the reliability of it? The Journal is widely respected--Malaikaran (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Uncertain simply means that the reliability (of the information added) has to be established before you can add it. You need to demonstrate that the statement you've added has general acceptability. Best to do that on the talk page before we change the article. (BTW, the reference appears to be to proceedings of a conference, not a journal.) --rgpk (comment) 21:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't add it. I only know from gbooks, that Southworth and Krishnamurthy have reviewed cintu. They are leading Dravidologists. I have no clue, what's written in this proceeding's paper.--Malaikaran (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit so no harm adding stuff as long as we discuss per WP:BRD which seems to be happening now. The source looks reliable to me and will likely pass WP:RS and we should add it if it passes other tests. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's a link with more books, "http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=cintu+date+palm+dravidian&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en&channel=suggest&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=cintu++dravidian+date+palm&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=98152dda829f0c08&biw=1039&bih=564".

Journal from the Cambridge press http://journals.cambridge.org/production/action/cjoGetFulltext?fulltextid=3827008

Those are all the references I can find on the net, sorry! ________________________________________________________________________________________ Why is a paper from the "First International Seminar on Dravidian Linguistics and the Fourteenth All India Conference of Dravidian Linguistics" authorised by the Indian government not acceptable as reliable?, the clue is in the name. oh well...

--Avedeus (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Conference proceedings are often not peer reviewed and, even if they are, are often not given the same level of scrutiny as journal articles. Note also that the editor who added the citation says that he/she has no clue what the article contains, not a particularly reassuring statement. The first just says that a meaning of cintu is 'date palm' (not particularly useful) and the second seems to be an article on linguistics rather than an article about the etymology of India. If valid, and I have no opinion on this, the claim should be easy to reliably source. --rgpk (comment) 22:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you being serious or joking?, that is precisely the point some linguists are trying to make that cintu originally meant date palm, but gave rise to the word Cintu==>Sindhu-->Hind-->Indus; LEXICAL CHANGE DOES NOT HAVE TO RETAIN ITS SEMANTIC FIELD. For example, in English, the word 'gay' means homosexual, it used to mean 'happy'; my point - meaning can change over time due to various political, social or cultural reasons.

Oh well, I give up, people hear what they want to hear. The fact that you are not even considering such a possibility after two credible sources (above) relate India and cintu. Besides, people in South Asian linguistics are well aware of this, excuse me for trying to bring it on Wikipedia. --Avedeus (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

that is precisely the point some linguists are trying to make that Once the point has been made, and accepted by historians as evidenced by reliable sources, it can be added to the article. Meanwhile, if I may suggest, discussions about new semantic interpretations are better conducted in peer reviewed academic venues rather than on an encyclopedia. --rgpk (comment) 16:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

For the last time: I didn't add the citation. Please go check the article's history.--Malaikaran (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC) btw, I see two books out of the books, who claim a connection to India/Indus. Maybe it should be addressed, that is a possibiliity rather than a fact.--Malaikaran (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The source given simply says that the term for "date palm" in Gondi is sindi, hindi. Nobody suggested, or in their right mind would ever suggest, that this has anything whatsoever to do with the name Sindhu or Hindi. These are just random sound-alikes. The sources cited may be "reliable", but that doesn't help much if they are used to "reference" statements which have nothing to do with what is in them. Really. Please do not add blatant nonsense to Wikipedia articles. It will just annoy people and help nobody, including you. --dab (𒁳) 09:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

SO you are saying that the words Sindhu and Hindi have not been derived from sindi and hindi, wow(!) Besides atleast two of the above sources directly relate India to cintu - therefore should atleast be given as a 'possibility'. How are you going to make a neutral article, if you just shove off other POVs?--Avedeus (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless western peer reviewed academics do not see how "the words Sindhu and Hindi have not been derived from sindi and hindi", it won't be included in Wikipedia and would be called random 'sound-alikes'(though people have made career out of this in western academics), etc. There are exceptions to the rule though, for example Aryan Invasion Theory was told around by peer reviewed academics for hundreds of years but it was later rejected. So that's my 2 coins on this. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 13:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

you haven't even shown that anyone ever suggested these Gondi words have anything to do with the name sindhu. As long as you don't do that, there isn't even a debate on this. This is just something you made up on your own, because of your lack of understanding of chronology. There is no way a Gondi word was loaned into the Rigveda. If sindhu was a Dravidian loan, it would need to be from a Dravidian /sindhu/, not from a Dravidian /ci:ntu/, which in one Dravidian language somehow became /si:ndu/ (not /sindhu/) a couple of millennia later. India is not called "Cintia", so there is really no point in debating this further. --dab (𒁳) 17:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

[| Edits] by User:MikeLynch

Hi, this is regarding two lines mentioned in the article on India as follows:

Beginning in the mid-18th century, India was gradually annexed by the British East India Company, along with the French and the Portuguese the during the age of Imperialism.

The other line is:

During the first half of the 20th century, various national and regional campaigns were launched in the colonial India. The subcontinent gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1947, after being partitioned into the dominions of India and Pakistan. On 26 January 1950, India became a republic, and a new constitution came into effect.

The above two lines are much more exhaustive as well as precise and short, in dealing with matter considered. I don't think anyone should have any issue with these. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This is crazy. What part of "why don't you discuss this" is unclear? Apparently, rgpk has reverted the additions for some reason. Lets hear him out and discuss it here. And you revert my edit, saying "see discussion"? What discussion? Lynch7 19:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, it is rgpk who reverted my edits without any discussion, then you jumped in when I reverted after explaining. If you have not noticed rgpk's edits, you need to recheck the history without any glasses. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Heard of WP:BRD? This is enough. You please continue the discussion relating to the content. Please do not waste your time or make others waste their time in meaningless discussion. Continue on the content discussion. Lynch7 07:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, but I have this understanding that from your side some unrealistic expectations will come which will be thrown around to disrupt the discussion, at the same time not accepting the presented sources as 'reliable'. This is from my experience. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

ThisThat, the addition of French and Portuguese is quite unnecessary in this summary article. While they did annex small parts of India, the main point is that India was a British colony (albeit with a few french and portuguese outposts). Details on India's colonial period can always be elaborated on in sub-articles. This article is already way too long and we should be looking for ways to take detail out, not add it in. (The French and Portuguese part doesn't fit with the next sentence, but that's not really the point here.) The same applies to the Independence movement. It was largely lead and orchestrated under the auspices of the INC, so that's what the article should say (I'm not sure why the Muslim League is in there - was it always there?). Details on other national and regional campaigns can always be added in a sub-article. Finally, 'various national and regional campaigns' is way too vague. --rgpk (comment) 19:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have taken both edits from related articles. If you notice the annexation of India during colonial India, these countries are mentioned explicitly.

As also if you notice the Indian independence movement article, it is very clearly mentioned that the movement was various national and regional campaigns, and then that article details the movements. To say that INC initiated/carried the Indian independence movement alone is in fact factually incorrect, for it is only a part of very numerous number of movements starting from 1867. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think, the sentence needs lot of tweaks. It looks like, the French and Portuguese were comparable in size with the British. I still think, the current version (wo. Fr and Po) suggests, that the British were the only colonial power. This needs to be showcaste in a proper way. The struggle for independence began much prior to the 20th century. Saying that all began with INC is an insult to thousands of other freedom fighters from the 18th century on (btw. INC was formed in 19th century). The INC and Muslim League became the leaders of the 20th century independence campaign.--David Fraudly (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The French and Portuguese holdings in India were nowhere near the size of British colonial India, which directly or indirectly ruled almost the entire mass of what is now India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Burma. Where did you get the idea that they were comparable in size? Also, if I may point out, the term 'gradual annexation', followed by 'colonization' applies only to the British. Finally, modern India is primarily an outcome of its British colonial period. The French and the Portuguese territorial periods had minimal, in any, impact on what is now modern India. I see no reason why this needs mention in a summary article. Once again, our focus should be on removing inconsequential details from this, already overlong, article rather than on adding more of them. About these 'various national and regional campaigns', could you please list the ones that are comparable to the role of the INC in India's independence struggle?--rgpk (comment) 20:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

As it is, the [| difference] hardly occupies not more than a line-width for both edits.

The term gradual annexation applies to all the colonial powers because the French, the Portuguese and the British not only annexed their territories but also fought over these at different times. See French annexations ( more even), the Portuguese in India and their wars. The edit from my side is therefore apt. Please let me know which source states that 'annexation applies only to the British' or something similar. Another fact remains still that India gained freedom in 1947, and 565 princely states were united too to form Modern India which is again missing from the page.

The sentence "During the first half of the 20th century, a nationwide struggle for independence was launched by the Indian National Congress and was later joined by the Muslim League" is plain incorrect considering that Independence movement is not just the one perused by INC but a collection of movements consisting of many mutually exclusive/inclusive parallel/crossing movements. To say that INC started it is plain incorrect in substance and fact, please read the article again. The statement that was put forth from my side stands correct as it is more exhaustive and accurate i.e. various national and regional campaigns were launched in the colonial India. We should do away with 20th century notation as the movements begin way back in 1867 onwards as mentioned on Indian independence movement; as also the fact that the First session of Indian National Congress, Bombay, was organized in 28-31, December, 1885. I don't think I need to be any more clear on this one, for we don't need any comparison between independence movements. Many people left INC to start some another movement and many left other movements to join INC. Such a kind of exclusive attitude is not correct at all for this page.

The history of modern India should not be written as a view from some limited sources. I have seen this tendency on the page, since I have signed up, for line-edits with some or other excuses. The article may be long but I am not sure how does it matter much when we are talking about plain text that hardly spends any resource anywhere anytime. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 21:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, the colonial history of India is largely a British colonial history. We can't go on inserting every fact into the main article, that's what sub-articles are for. Please provide examples of 'various national and regional campaigns' that were of equivalent importance to the role of the INC in India's independence struggle. Thanks. --rgpk (comment) 17:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

rgpk I think INC came later and did not exist during Indian Rebellion of 1857 which is commonly regarded as India's first attempt to free itself from European rule. I agree British holdings were the biggest but French and Portuguese had some holdings and French sided with many Indian princely states against the British so their influence is greater than that suggested by their small colonies in the subcontinent. Anglo-Sikh wars and Tipu Sultans efforts are also regarded as "freedom struggle" by majority of people. --Wikireader41 (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikireader, the indian rebellion of 1857 is not regarded as a nationwide struggle for independence. It was confined mostly to the region around Delhi, western UP, and madhya pradesh and more Indians actively fought on the side of the company than did on the side of the rebels. It is generally accepted that the rebellion started as a mutiny of soldiers who were dissatisfied with the conditions of their service and, perhaps, with English rule in general. It evolved into a struggle to overthrow British rule but, as I point out above, it was never nationwide and cannot necessarily be characterized as a popular struggle. About the INC, it was formed in 1885. Properly considered, the nationwide struggle for Independence started with the partition of Bengal and the Swadeshi movement (led by Tilak and Lala Lajpat Rai, both INC leaders). Our article includes the Indian rebellion of 1857 as resulting from 'dissatisfaction with company rule' which is reasonably representative of what it was. Perhaps the INC role can be changed to "A nationwide struggle for independence, mostly led by the Indian National Congress and later joined by the Muslim League, gained momentum in the first part of the 20th century. The subcontinent gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1947, after being partitioned into the dominions of India and Pakistan. On 26 January 1950...". Since 'launched' is perhaps not the right term. 'Various national and regional campaigns' makes sense only if the INC had not played a pivotal role (for good or for bad) in the process. --rgpk (comment) 19:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think, we should provide all important events in a history summary. An artificial size limitation shouldn't distort the facts at all. Regarding the colonial history, I think we may cut off the Portuguese and Dutch for their limited achievements, but the French were the main rivals for the British in India and the infights arre presented everywhere and I think we should come up with some solution too. After all, it was the win over the French, which helped the British to rule most Indian territories. Regarding freedom struggles, I think, we should mention, that there were regional uprisings, not for importance reasons, but to present, again, plain facts and essential information from an Indian pov, which shouldn't be sacrificed for size limits. There are other sections in this article, which could be scrapped alltogether, for instance "foreign relations", which maybe more relevant in the Indian politics article, if you ask me.--David Fraudly (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

@ rgpk. a freedom struggle does not have to be "nationwide" to be considered a freedom struggle. 1857 war was considered a "freedom struggle" by majority of Indians who at last count represented about a sixth of humanity. In the Indian context India was never a unified single country before the British so the question of a national movement does not arise. Many people tried in their own way to get rid European colonists. eventually INC was able to unite the majority of these independent struggler's into a coherent united voice. people like Bhagat Singh & Lala Lajpat Rai were clearly opposite in their methods to Gandhi but had a part in galvanizing the subcontinent. but a lot of work was done by small groups of people prior to that also. Also the Indian struggle was against colonial rulers whether it was the "company" or the Queen. worldwide too colonialism was "outsourced" to private companies by European governments long before the term outsourced was invented. I do not want to understate the importance of INC to the freedom struggle but to mention just them would be a violation of NPOV.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

it is for these reasons, i believe it is just a fantasy to make articles such as India with a "difficult to define" scope a FA. even if we succeed to call it one eventually, it will just be a fallacy because it will merely be the product of the limited knowledge of the few editors who participated in the FA process. --CarTick (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

agree. that is why we need more editors on wp knowledgeable about India to counter WP:BIAS. that is why we have crazy article titles like Indian Rebellion of 1857. any chance you think of having an article on American Rebellion of 1775 ??--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This is no surprise to me, considering I just signed up this April, 2011. All popular pages in India are written by mostly British, some American, but always foreigners. Example this page India, Ganga, and so on, and of course talk pages eg. "no consensus", RFI, this and onwards continuously eg. pictures!, the whole discussions and discourse is laugh riot of dark humor. There are reasons why many people have left Wikipedia (archives are a good starting point to see this) because of this and why for articles on India we need more because there will always be whole lot of discouragement like this for months on. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This is no place for your personal analysis on the attrition rates of editors. You can write an essay on it in your userspace if you wish. To clear the air, I am Indian, and I partially agree with your view. Lynch7 12:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This is talk page and I am talking from personal experience. This is not main page. It can be seen what a two line edit, which is more accurate relevant exhaustive and referenced, has come to. And it is not because of me by the way, if you notice, it is because it is opposed with excuses in styles particular to this page alone. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 13:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Very good. Please continue the content discussion. Lynch7 13:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thisthat2011 there is no substitute to being patient and gradually increasing the numbers of people who are knowledgeable about Indian history and who don't parrot what is written in western RS about Indian history. It is a particularly painful reality for many Britishers that the food that they eat today has been stolen from so called "third world" countries by their government and ancestors. Ergo we get efforts to "whitewash" and present British history in the brightest light possible. In addition many westerners still think of polytheist Hindus as pagans who need to be "saved". Racism in the west is dying an equally slow death as Casteism in India though both are illegal. I am afraid the articles on Topics like this will always be biased IMO representing the biases of the editors working on them at any given time. you might find WP:CSB interesting. For every Indian nationalist I have seen on WP I have seen twice as many Racists & Colonialism sympathizers--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC).

(od) The Indian rebellion vs First war of independence issue has been discussed ad nauseam on the Indian rebellion discussion page. Even Indian historians don't characterize it as a war of independence. Also, once again, it would be nice if someone would actually provide examples of 'national and regional movements' that were anywhere near the role of the INC in India's independence struggle. We could hardly, for example, say "led by the INC and the INA", not comparable in scope whatsoever. Nor could we say, "led by the INC and the RSS," now could we? Failing an alternative, "various national and regional movements" is mere whitewashing. Finally, it would be much preferable to confine the discussion to content rather than to the motivation of editors, general comments about racism, or discussions about the national origins of other editors. Such attempts are usually the last recourse of editors who have no sources but prefer to hammer at the opposition with personal invective. I thought you all were better than that (in all but one case above, that is). --rgpk (comment) 21:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Is the exception named above in the last line refer to me? Because I am amongst the guys who have been giving references here, not making unsubstantiated claims like 'Independence movements started in late 20th century led by INC', 'Indian rebellions', 'Colonial Indian History is only about the British annexation' and so on, as also the previous discussions mentioned here.

In an article edited and moderated by people who don't even acknowledge that 'Bharat' is another English name(??, and ignore presented references for one full month including in RFC here "no consensus" and here RFI) of India to begin with, it is not entirely novel that two lines of edits are going to be debated without any links/sources given from the other side at all, while references presented by the other side are not even acknowledged. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

We should not go on confusing the INC of that time with the INC of today. Though both share the same name, they are completely different in most other aspects. Most historians and textbooks state the INC's greater role in the independence movement. Just generalising it to "national and regional movements" is understating the INC's role. Any mention of the independence movement would be incomplete without the mention of the INC and Gandhi. Lynch7 03:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Really rgpk. here is what the largest political party in the worlds largest democracy has to say [1][2]. Communists seem to agree with them also.[3] Yes the party is the same INC whose mention you wanted in the lede and which has ruled the country for majority of time since independence. a little WP:DUE weight would be nice. Like I said INC had a major role but was not the sole party. It was not even established till 1885. are we trying to imply that Indians were happy and fortunate to have British colonize them and only in the 1880s started to fight for their independence ?? another tome on indian independednce movement might be of interest.[4],[www.njactt.org/files/indias_first_war_of_independence_for_liberation.doc]--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I kinda agree with Wikireader41. I think it is better to mention one other major group involved; probably the "moderates" like Tilak and his group, who had disagreements with Gandhi, or maybe elements of the Home Rule League. But one point of importance is that the movements gained momentum after the INC got involved, and before that, the movements were somewhat localised. Lynch7 05:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

MikeLynch, Tilak (as well as Lajpat Rai) were members of the INC. I can't think of a single major movement that was not in some way connected with the INC. The Indian National Army comes the closest, but its impact and existence were both small in comparison. Wikireader, no one is saying that Indians were toasting British rule with champagne every night prior to the Swadeshi movement or that the Indians welcomed British rule! But, it is useful to put things in perspective. The anglo-sikh wars, for example, were fought by the Sikhs against being ruled by the British but the Sikhs turned around and fought on the side of the British a mere seven years later, indicating that there was no 'movement' for independence in India. The various desires for Independence didn't gel until the early twentieth century, and from that point on, the INC was the main leader of the movement. If there is a general feeling that the rebellion needs to be highlighted more, may I suggest "Dissatisfaction with English rule, a mutiny by Company soldiers led to a general rebellion against British rule in 1857 in large swathes of Northern India after which India was directly administered by the British Crown." And, for the INC part, once again I suggest replacing launched with led, or even "mostly led by". --rgpk (comment) 01:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The current discourse with statements like 'Indian Independence movment' started in early 20th century, led by INC and 'joined' by Muslim league' is incorrect.

I would suggest something on the lines 'various nationwide and regionwide independence movements were launched, most notably 1875 war of Independence, ... so as to consider role of freedom fighters exhaustively.

Considering the length of [|History of USA], this looks like a peanut to me. There should not be a size constraint the way it is done now.

Interrupting for every line of edit should also be avoided. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If you consider meaningful discussion as "disruption", there is little that can be done. Of course, Indian independence movement started before the beginning of the 20th century, 1857 is a good example (irrespective of what you call the 1857 uprising). There seems to be little doubt that INC spearheaded the independence movement, along with the Muslim League. Other members like the Hindu Mahasabha and INA were involved, but to a lesser extent. I would suggest a mention of many of the parties involved, but it is to be made clear that the INC along with the Muslim League was at the forefront. Lynch7 08:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Let us examine references presented from the other side, which is none. Opposing something without presenting any sources can hardly be called discussion, more likely an attitude of judging instead of discussion.

As a side-note, the Muslim League's history in Indian independence movements began no earlier than in 1930s. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 10:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think your suggestion should be accepted.--David Fraudly (talk) 10:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

@ rgpk the key thing here is what constitutes "India" and what comes within the domain of "Indian freedom Struggle". was the Sikh Empire a part of India ? can the Anglo-Sikh wars be considered part of "Indian Freedom struggle" ??. Most Indians would answer a resounding yes to both those questions. that the Sikhs fought with the British a few years later is because they did not want to go back to Mughal rule which is the strategic blunder the freedom fighters made in 1857 when they declared Bahadur Shah II the emperor. To imagine that Sikhs were OK with British rule ( at any point in time) is gross twisting of history. I agree that INC played a major rule in the twentieth century and we could use "led by" to describe that. but by no means were they the only ones. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar was clearly not INC and most Indians would take offense to him not being called a "freedom fighter". Indians perceived Christian White Europeans as very different from themselves and resisted them from the beginning. However the myriad independent rulers and states which British successfully played off against each other did not unite against the British/Portuguese/French till 20th century. One of the major reasons why the name "first war of independence" is controversial in India is because people think the movement in their own neighborhood ( eg Punjab) was the "first war of independence". Nobody in a billion strong India thinks mutiny is a correct word to describe 1857. I suspect Chinese would agree too ;)--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikireader, you're misstating my position. Whether the Sikhs were OK or not with British rule is not the point (and is unanswerable at this time in any case) and I'm not even commenting on that. The point is that, for most historians, India's freedom struggle begins with the Swadeshi movement. All historians believe that the Indian rebellion of 1857 started as a mutiny of sepoys, not as an independence movement and that the rebellion then expanded to non-sepoy armies (armies raised by various princes) and that large swathes of India were both unaffected as well as unconcerned with it. Those are the facts. The rest is interpretation and while these interpretations of historians vary along a the continuum ranging from 'simple mutiny' to 'war of independence', very few lie on the 'independence' end. I must say that I am surprised that you include the Anglo-Sikh wars as a part of the independence struggle. That view is particularly outré considering that the Punjab was an independent entity that fought the British during the wars, the Sikh empires territorial ambitions were limited to north-west India and present day Afghanistan, and, not the least because that is certainly not how history is taught in India. Presenting India's independence struggle as a continuous struggle from the 1840s onward may be a nice feel good exercise but is a perversion of history that does no one any good. --rgpk (comment) 17:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

@rgpk well like I said that different regional forces were fighting the British and constituted "Indian freedom movement" ( no India as a unified entity existed prior to that) and these regions were part of what became India. Since INC considers 1857 the "first war of independence" and represents a huge chunk of humanity would make me say that this is the dominant view. what a few ( mostly british) authors wrote about a "mutiny" in history books (which nobody buys or reads) is a WP:FRINGE view which even most Britishers dont believe in nowadays. I did learn history in India so when you say this is not the way history is taught in India could you please tell me where you got that idea. you might want to write to the Indian govt per WP:TRUTH and remind them that the freedom struggle started with Swadeshi movement because they seem to be spreading misinformation on their official websites[5] the struggle by various Indian states and provinces against British may not have been continuous, synchronous or coordinated but they are considered bona fide part of Indian freedom struggle at least in the country where 1/6 humanity lives. --Wikireader41 (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be quite wrong to say that before the 1900s, the fight was for "Independence" as such. No doubt that there were localised movements, and nothing on a national scale. But one point is that many people in India were not fighting for complete independence, or Swaraj. Indeed, a prominent group (whom History textbooks now call Moderates) wanted a Dominion status for India. This is different from complete Swaraj. Just because a king fought the British (for ex: Tipu Sultan), it does not mean that he was fighting for Indian Independence. When rgpk says that the actual Independence movement started from the Swadeshi movement, he is right for the most part. And btw, the 1857 uprising is still widely seen as a mutiny (yes, in Indian textbooks), and I don't think there's anything wrong in characterising it as such. Lynch7 06:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not in the business of writing history or correcting reporting errors and rightly so, we go by what reliable sources, and in this particular case that consists of the wealth of scholarly studies and literature. They report the aspects of these many wars, battles and movements against the British or EIC in a certain manner, and we ought to just report that. —SpacemanSpiff 13:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I am sure the discussion has sources presented by many, if noticed. As usual, there is no sources presented by the other side and the reason for reversing edits is only because 'there is no consensus', the behavior repeated as pointed out. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Where are the sources to be provided for backing up claims, from User:SpacemanSpiff, User:MikeLynch and User:RegentsPark? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You seem not to have read the discussion completely, and above that, you seem to be prejudiced. If you'd notice your mentions in the DR noticeboards, and in previous discussions here, it is your behaviour which needs notice. That aside, if you'd notice, we were talking about points. The sources for those are not hard to find (I think that's why no one bothered to mention them). If some conclusion is reached here, then we could probably whip in some sources. Lynch7 11:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I am sure the discussion will be much clearer with sources presented earlier rather than later. In no way requiring sources for claims can amount to prejudice. As per the discussion, the same points are repeated again and again, for which User:Wikireader41 has already replied 'a freedom struggle does not have to be "nationwide" to be considered a freedom struggle' which is missed out apparently. Please mention the sources that are available so that the discussion can move ahead rather than conditional presentation of sources depending upon some conclusions. If you have missed the word 'please', it is a request. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 10:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It is about 2 weeks since last post above. Please present sources so the discussion can move ahead instead of being halted on 'no consensus'. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

What exactly do you want to see sourced? The current version appears well sourced to me. --rgpk (comment) 18:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read the discussion before commenting. The sources are needed for clarity as requested earlier, regarding edits that were reverted. I think this is another instance when a knight in a shining armor will come out presenting sources, cornering all glory, so that discussion can move on from this. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh trust me, this is exactly the kind of useless talk that is leading us nowhere. Anyway, i've put in the sources for whatever I have said. Anyway, whatever I've said is based on these books:Together with History and Civics. Rachna Sagar Pvt. Ltd. 2007. ISBN 81-8137-037-6.; Sen, S.N. (2006). History Modern India. New Age International.; Sengupta, Sudeshna. ICSE History and Civics. Ratna Sagar.; History and Civics. Goyal Brothers. 2005.. Lynch7 19:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for replying with sources. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to ask Mike Lynch and RGPK where the Idea that a freedom struggle needs to involve the entire country in order to be considered a freedom movement ??? is this an original thought or do some RS say this as well. my next question is why then will it be Ok to call American Revolutionary War the American war of independence when clearly Texas and California (and for that matter majority of modern day US. see Thirteen Colonies who were involved in this "independence battle" and pay attention to what percentage of US they represented.) had no role in it.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to ask you, what sir, is your definition of a freedom struggle. Let me remind you that the American War of Independence originally applied to some particular colonies; that TX and CA and a host of others acceded later to the union (of USA) does not make much of a difference. The war was not between the USA and Britain. Lynch7 18:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

(reply to wikireader) It is not a question of "why" but "what". We don't need to care why the American war of independence is called what it is. All we need to know is that that is the term generally applied to that event. Similarly, we don't really need to know why, say, the Anglo-Sikh wars or the Rebellion of 1857 are included or not included in India's freedom struggle. If historians of most stripes include them, so be it. If the don't, then that's what we say. It is easy to construct original arguments for almost any historical event (like is being doing above) but all that is better left to peer-reviewed academic journals. --rgpk (comment) 21:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanx rgpk. Exactly what I say. You and MikeLynch were the ones saying that the struggle has to be "nationwide" to be considered freedom struggle and prior to swadeshi movement it was not. Like I pointed out clearly 1857 is considered "First war of Independence" by multiple RS.[6],[7] The current ruling party INC also calls it by the same name and recently 150 years anniversary was celebrated all over in India.[[8]][9] the speaker of lower house of worlds largest democracy needs to be given WP:DUE weight and not just some obscure "academic" history textbooks which all of 2 people have read and most libraries also don't carry. Unless of course you believe that Indians don't know there history and need to be taught it using British textbooks ;)--Wikireader41 (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

@ Mike Lynch I consider "independence struggle" what is described as "Independence struggle" by RS. It so happens that the Indian government thinks of 1857 war as "first war of Independence " as does the 19 volume textbook I have linked to above. Most Americans ( natives) did not fight against the british yet it is called "American war of Independence" by RS. I bring this up since you along with rgpk were asserting that prior to swadeshi no "nationwide " freedom struggle existed. It is clear that many RS and the Indian government disagrees.[10]][11]. we need to give these RS due weight which I think is way more than any obscure "history textbook" written by some starving history professor in some obscure university.--Wikireader41 (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

So now can the edits be reverted? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

[| Edit] by User:Fowler&fowler - Golden age of India

Hi,

The substance is [| well referenced already], and [Ramesh Chandra Majumdar] & [| Anant Sadashiv Altekar] are both well known authors on Indian History.

This matter

in the period regarded as the Golden Age of India.

is therefore well referenced and should stay on the page, and should not be dropped. I would like User:Fowler&fowler to throw some light on mentioned modern historians on India, who reject this, as well.

More references for the same: 1, 2, 3. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Save your strength

Thisthat we can wake someone who is sleeping but not kupamandukas who pretend sleep, don't waste your energy. Conserve it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC) PS: Section titles look ugly with links in them.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, though I would like to discuss this atleast on talk pages and see what happens. I have some experience dealing with 'no consensus' first hand here on sources. So I would like to know more about these sources. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Please translate your signature subhashit. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Well I am using this place because the discussion [12] is pertinent.

1. You are right that there are many anti-Hindu sites on the web, but there are anti-other religion sites, so that isn't Wikipedia's fault.
2. It is true that white-Christian globally have a certain view about other religions and cultures, that view is carrying great weight as white-Christian culture predominates,[13], Standards, Selectivity and western domination but that too isn't Wikipedia's fault.
3. That was in general, now regarding two closely related articles India and Ganga, which see friction, you see monkeys are fighting and the old fat cat smiles and he slyly eats the cake, for example India that is Bharat, or the name Ganga, these pages are at the mercy of a few kupamandukas who have fast internet connections, come from a affluent economies that have shorter weeks, so they have the leisure; and so we have scientific facts like water quality juxtaposed against belief; does Wikipedia juxtapose virgin birth against parthenogenesis, or other such beliefs? So we have Ganga at the mercy of kupamandukas who argue that it sounds like ganja to them, with little understanding of wp:UNDUE, the same with child marriage, or even pollution or corruption and culture with the Ganga Action Plan as reasons for its failure, you see a few cents were spent per person per year on the plan, but Wikipedia informs that the Ganga Action Plan failed because Hindus are perverts.
4. Luckily Wikipedia isn't like academia, (See Rajiv Malhotra and the Peer review racket) and it offers a reasonably level playing field, we need editors with good knowledge of Wikipedia and the ability to apply it well, till then it is like banging your head against a wall. Please don't. Bide your time, this wall will fall too, but we need a critical mass first.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to add South Asia to the list of perversions here, you see the name India was so popular that even when Columbus reached a land which was almost antipodal to India yet he called it and its inhabitants India/Indian, and here we have ignoramuses who have an antipathy for the name. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

well maybe there are some editors who feel that "Golden age" was rightfully the British Raj when the Pagans and Polytheists were enlightened and the The White Man's Burden was fulfilled ;). agree though WP:BIAS issues will persist till 1/6 WP english editors are from India ( which is the proportion of humanity which is Indian). we still have a long way to go. but WP:CSB does make interesting reading.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't know how Europeans were 'civilized' in 1700(by what standards - i.e. hygiene, machines, education, peace, constitution and so on, I guess it is completely different time where it would take a lot to do little(by today's standards) and only elites would know most of the stuff until the printing press was invented;), or for that matter 1800 or 1900 even. Here is a bloglink that says (stuff not too well peer reviewed by academics): 'For England had few schools for the children of ordinary people till about 1800.'; here it says about Education in Britain 17-18th century - amongst many other things, 'Around 1802, the monitorial method of teaching used by Joseph Lancaster (and also by Andrew Bell, supposedly borrowed from India, Ibid pg 246, Note on Indian Education by Alexander Walker quote ‘The children were instructed without violence and by a process peculiarly simple. The system was borrowed from the Bramans and brought from India to Europe. It has been made the foundation of National schools in every enlightened country.' and so on and on and on. This looks a classic extremely right-wing Hindutvavadi nationalistic blog apparently, and I am not sure if it can stand upto the standards of academics. Co-incidentally, today Churches own more than 30% education institutions in India(which also teach Sciences) which is fine and are almost private institutions affiliated to various boards, state can't loot them off their fees which is all good, though Hindus can not open schools with the same benefits that a minority institution enjoys from the state(same reservation policies , high statute protection) unless the one who wants to run a school declares its status as some 'minority'(linguistic etc.). Here is some more from banned voi.org I guess only time can make a difference here, till then wait and watch this. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thisthat2011 you may find Dr Manmohan Singhs speech at Oxford interesting. He quotes data from the research done by worlds foremost "Economic historian" Angus Maddison about what happened to India's Economy during British Raj.[14] . I quote "There is no doubt that our grievances against the British Empire had a sound basis. As the painstaking statistical work of the Cambridge historian Angus Maddison has shown, India's share of world income collapsed from 22.6% in 1700, almost equal to Europe's share of 23.3% at that time, to as low as 3.8% in 1952. Indeed, at the beginning of the 20th Century, "the brightest jewel in the British Crown" was the poorest country in the world in terms of per capita income." And editors are still being blocked for working on articles on WP pointing out how the British screwed India as "Hindu Nationalists".--Wikireader41 (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That makes Dr Manmohan Singh an extremely right wing Hindu nationalist by standards of Wikipedia, or standards made to look like on Wikipedia. I am not surprised. Apparently, INP had a book/booklet published where it was pointed out that many Britishers had opposed policies, administration.(raed) ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

As before and after this discussion, the edits are [reverted], this time by User:RegentsPark, without presenting any sources and claims to the contrary and absolutely no discussion.

Please consider the whole discussion again and find out where are the sources presented by anyone other than the one presented from my side from reliable sources as mentioned in the first time.

Is this the usual way of reverting edits on Wikipedia? Please present standards for this behavior, sources and lets not assume(without any standards) that conditional presentation of sources are to be made after certain conclusions, etc. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 12:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

ThisThat, you need to get consensus that your material is generally accepted by historians. The discussion above seems rather general and, if you'll pardon the slight criticism, not at all germane (it is a better idea to focus the discussion than to use it as a soapbox for perceived grievances). I suggest a more focused discussion, that you get consensus, and then the material can be included. Best wishes. --rgpk (comment) 13:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

[Ramesh Chandra Majumdar] (more on wikipage as 'dean of Indian History') & [| Anant Sadashiv Altekar] (more on wikipage) are well known authority on Indian History, as mentioned the first time the discussion began on 7 July 2011. I also asked what historians are averse to this view(not my material), which are yet to be answered. I have presented 4 sources already, and no sources are coming from the other side for 3 days. As usual, there could hardly be any sources pointing out how it was "not Golden age", and this looks like going to the 'no consensus' way, the manner in which the RFC on India, that is, Bharat went, without any sources claiming anything otherwise on basis of 'no consensus'.

This is third time I am requesting this. Also present the standard on Wikipedia for requiring consensus without any sources presented at all on the other side. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 13:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The Golden Age of India is a vacuous characterization, as I've already stated. Modern historians don't mention it. Wikipedia itself hasn't taken it seriously, for, the page Golden Age of India redirects to the Gupta Empire. So, your edit is nothing but a tautology. As for Majumdar, I have here on my desk, the 1960 edition of An Advanced History of India, the magnum opus of R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri and Kalikinkar Datta, considered by many to be the most exhaustive of the classical histories of India. Although the book devotes some 50 pages to the Guptas, it mentions the "golden age" nowhere. Besides how could it be the Golden Age of India? The Guptas never got below the Vindhyas. And the Mughals had their own Golden Age, just as renowned at the Gupta's, as did the Cholas (the evidence is found all over southeast asia), as did British India in the late 19th century, in spite of the famines, given India's infrastructure, laws, lingua franca, not to speak of the Bengal renaissance. So, at best it would be a golden age of the Gangetic Plain (which constituted the limit of the Guptas dominion). The the Gupta golden age, as far as I can tell, was popularized by Vincent Smith in his Oxford History of India (1920), and he used the expression, "a golden age." It was likely hijacked by nationalist (mainly Hindu) historians desperate at that time to find any Hindu silver lining in India's culturally variegated history. That age of history writing has long gone. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well thanks for answer. Though I must point out the [| material referenced] is from a book published in 1967. R.C. Majumdar is a co-author of this book too, so it is well-referenced, and has nothing to do with (likely)'nationalist (mainly Hindu) historians desperate at that time to find any Hindu silver lining in India's culturally variegated history'(opinion). ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yes, I understand that you have a sourced edit. In fact the metaphor "golden age" has been widely used in older histories for different regions of the world, but it does not any more represent the current usage among historians. Besides, the achievements of the Gupta golden age have been mentioned in the text in great detail both with respects to religious revival and the arts. Here is what the text says: "By the fourth and fifth centuries CE, the Gupta Empire had created a complex administrative and taxation system in the greater Ganges Plain that became a model for later Indian kingdoms. Under the Guptas, a renewed Hinduism based on devotion rather than the management of ritual began to assert itself and was reflected in a flowering of sculpture and architecture, which found patrons among an urban elite. Classical Sanskrit literature flowered as well, and Indian science, astronomy, medicine, and mathematics made significant advances." The content is all there. So, mentioning the "golden age of India" is redundant, especially when it redirects to the Gupta Empire. Here is Romila Thapar, in her History of India, elaborating on what I have already said: "The Gupta period is also referred to as the Classical Age of ancient India. The description is true in so far as we speak of the upper classes, amongst whom living standards reached a peak never before attained, and this was largely true for northern India. For historians writing in the early twentieth century, the 'golden age' had to be a utopia set in the distance past, and the period chosen by those working on the early history of India was one in which Hindu culture came to be firmly established. However, the classicism of the Gupta period was restricted to northern India alone, since in the Deccan and south India it was the post-Gupta period that saw the evolution of a high level of civilization." I hope this helps. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all there are numerous contradictions in the above statements.

To say that 'golden age' notion is out of usage and then say that it is redundant is somehow contradiction to the sourced matter that prominently says so(1967 book),and later by sources presented already in book published in 2007, another published in 2003 and still other in 2007.

Then there is other assertions about 'Mughals had their own Golden Age', 'British India in the late 19th century' (Golden age), 'a golden age of the Gangetic Plain only' are mentioned without any sources(therefore can be said to be synthesis). So are the assertions that 'It was likely hijacked by nationalist (mainly Hindu) historians desperate at that time to find any Hindu silver lining', 'The description is true in so far as we speak of the upper classes, amongst whom living standards reached a peak never before attained', 'the period chosen by those working on the early history of India was one in which Hindu culture came to be firmly established' when the fact is that in Gupta empire all religions present prospered, not just Hindus. Statements 'the classicism of the Gupta period was restricted to northern India alone' and therefore can not be called Golden age of India is again appears as synthesis.

About Romila Thapar, she is an author of limited credibility(Her reputation, though, was mostly confined to academic circles and generations of appreciative students at Jawaharlal Nehru University.) & people have in the courts said on record that she is influenced by Marxism(a political ideology), and can be expected to have sources influenced by Marxism and should not be quoted as a standard reference source on Indian History. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You have been soapboxing here interminably and are apparently under the impression that Wikipedia mandates that a reply be given for each one of your advertisements ignorance and bias, ad infinitum and ad nauseam. I will not be engaging you any further. As for your pronouncements on Romila Thapar, make them to the US Library of Congress. Please. Who do you think you are? The cat's miaoww? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this a reply to request of sources for viewpoints? If there are no sources presented for these viewpoints, I can not be faulted for requesting clarity and for absence of mandate for reply. I have very clearly indicated sources along with years of publications as can be viewed in above statements, so there is no lack of clarity on my part. The substance mentioned with sources and clarifying years of publications should not be overlooked and treated as 'advertisements (of?) ignorance and bias, ad infinitum and ad nauseam'.

Romila Thapar herself has acknowledged that she and historians have come from political left, which is as far as contents from her side should be treated, and not generalized as non-political & non-leftist, is my view. If such socially leftists views are well recognized after acknowledged as politically influenced, & if well-referenced and clarified(on years of publication) sources are not recognized, others can not be faulted for such systemic bias.

I have thus presented 4 different sources prominently presenting the substance under consideration that was deleted. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 10:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to know what is the significance of "The cat's miaoww" and how are these questions relevent here. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 11:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

(od)Suddenly we have the mother of all soapboxers calling other people's edits wp:SOAPBOX Few examples of soapboxing, if someone wants to go formal, I will come up with diffs a galore. (1)India is the agressor in Kashmir. (2)Hindu priests are perverts and exploiters (3)Hindu perverts are damning Ganga and Muslims are taking good care of it. (4)Hindus beat their wives with the weapons of their Gods. (5) Hindu historians have perverted history. (6) Indian English isn't a dialect, Pakistani English is. (7)There is no such thing as India, it is South Asia. Don't waste your time editors. Remember Wikipedia isn't cast in concrete.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• [8]Hindu male sexual perverts abuse little girls under the cloak of marriage.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

@ Fowler&fowler you need to read WP:DUE. while I agree some sources may not call Gupta period "Golden age" many others do.[15] Stop calling people who don't agree with you "Hindu nationalist" unless you want to be called a "British Racist" yourself. please see this textbook on south asian history. Are you trying to imply that you are not aware of this book. or do you only choose to read and quote RS that agree with your POV? stop your POv pushing here now[16][17] and stop cherry picking your sources. we need to give all significant points of view due weight. --Wikireader41 (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You mean Mark Kenoyer's junior high school textbook? Thanks for the edification. As someone who knew Mark, I am confident that he is unlikely himself to recommend his text for Wikipedia's India page, probably not even for IVC (his specialty). I'm sticking to the major modern historians and to their undergraduate and graduate texts widely used world wide. By the way, I'm not talking about "Hindu nationlist" historians, but rather nationalist historians who happen to be Hindu; they are two different things. Here is Upinder Singh's new History of Ancient and Early Medieval India, being widely used now in the leading Indian universities' history courses. Go to its Google link and search for "golden age." See page 8 of the introduction, which says, "Indian scholars of the late 19th and first half of the 20th century made major contributions towards constructing a connected narrative of ancient India. Writing against the background of an emergent, and later increasingly strong national movement, these historians are generally referred to as Nationalist historians. ... The nationalist tinge in the writings of these scholars can be seen in their insistence on the indigenous roots of all major cultural developments. It is also reflected in their search for golden ages, which led to their exalting the age of the Vedas and the Gupta empire. ... The periodization of the Indian past into Hindu, Muslim, and British periods was, however, retained. It coalesced with a communal tendency to valorize the "Hindu period" to project the advents of the Turks and Islam as a calamity and tragedy." Also, on page 473, it says, "Indian historians who lived and wrote during the period of nationalist resistance to colonial rule portrayed the Gupta period as a "golden age." Clearly, there is no room in Wikipedia for outmoded categories. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

PS On page 8, please also find a picture of R. C. Majumdar, much discussed above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes the picture can be seem along with the caption 'a hostorian of nationalist school', which I am reading first time about R. C. Majumdar. The same page also describes emergence of 'Marxist Historiography'(political?) since 1950s, 'uncovering history of non-elite groups', 'shifting focus especially related to class stratification and agrarian relations', and then describes some unglorious setbacks too i.e. 'uni-linear historic models, uncriticality, 'problematic chronology and peculiarity of genre', 'religion and class were often sidelined', etc. So if for culture in history of India is sidelined, there is no wonder to me that the words 'golden age' did not find mention in Marxist Historiography.

Also I understand, the argument now is turning to giving reasons on why 'golden age' narrative should/should not be included, and then details thereof, regardless of WP:undue. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

So we are in a position where alleged 'nationalist school' of thought is to be sidelined, but a very clear Marxist thought is to be considered, as well as per above book, criticism of both is also considered without ignoring Marxist Historiography. Just my 2 [| copper coins]. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Regardless of all the cant above, I think we should use terms such as "golden age" with care. One group's golden age could quite easily be the dark ages of another group and, unless mainstream academic sources are generally in agreement that an age was 'golden' or 'dark' we should avoid those terms for NPOV reasons. --rgpk (comment) 18:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this comment from a reliable source? Are we going to ignore what is mentioned in reliable sources because of this caution? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article Review

I don't want to be pushy or anything, but the FAR hasn't gotten any attention for some time now. I don't want to see this article be demoted, it is one of the oldest featured articles on Wikipedia! Clay^Clay_Clay 21:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm returning home on Tuesday July 6. Will address the remaining unaddressed issues soon thereafter. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The history section expansion in response to FAR comments is now complete. All the remaining issues have now been addressed. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

1928 India field hockey picture

Someone has added a picture of the Indian field hockey team playing in the 1928 Amsterdam Olympics. If we ignore for now that the picture is too low res for a Featured Article, we still need to make sure that it is not a copyvio. The accompanying information is linked to a page that says nothing (a few pages from hockey wizard Dhyan Chand's autobiography). Doesn't even have that picture anymore. Nothing is known about the photographer. Given that it is from the Olympics, and that the year was 1928, it is quite likely that it was taken by an international news agency. So, PD-US-1923-abroad does not apply. I propose removing the picture until someone sorts out its copyright status. Perhaps the editor who placed it there will explain and do the legwork. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

IMO image quality is not suitable for a featured article, so it shouldn't be added in the first place. Just to add its copyvio problem. — Bill william compton^Talk 14:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Golden Age under the British

Golden age under the British? Wow! The entire Europe was trying to find a trade route to India. Do you know why? Even America got discovered as someone wanted desperately to come to India. India wasn't discovered as you may have seen in textbooks. The goods from India were an article or luxury in Europe. The Indian industry was killed, Indians were sold and bought as slaves. I hope you don't want me to add more. Anyways if it's about the golden age of british empire then please add it in page 'East India Company' or someother page about Britain. But please spare the mention here as it may get challenged. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(1)Any one who suggests that there was a Golden age in India under the British, should come with wp:RS for such statements or (using the mildest language possible) strike out such utter nonsense and apologise for wp:SOAPBOX and wp:OR. (2)Other editors too should arrive at a consensus to how to deal with an editor who is disrupting the article and the talk page with such drivel. Especially those administrators who prowl this page and had/have (I am unaware of the status) put Zuggernaut in the slammerYogesh Khandke (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Which edits are you referencing? --Snowded ^TALK 05:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You (Snowded), unless I missed, don't have an edit here in the last 500 edits. I think wp:TAGTEAM could perhaps be read.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Quit the WP:NPA personal attacks, I have your and Z's page under watch from long ago and spotted an earlier controversy. Its the way wikipedia works. Now answer the question --Snowded ^TALK 07:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I have the right not to engage with someone who attacks me personally by hurling wp:NPA at me.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You do, given that I haven't perhaps you would answer the question? --Snowded ^TALK 07:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

A comment I can see here is this comment. A lot of assertions are unsourced. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Finding sources isn't that hard. You could have done it yourself. Here goes: Golden age of the Cholas (10th century), Golden age of the Mughal empire (the 17th century), Golden age of the British empire (the 19th century). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

These are different from an age which can be considered as a "Golden age of India", without going into viewpoints of Cholas/Mughals/British, nor are these from reliable sources. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 11:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(od) The lead has a statement that goes "Gradually annexed by the British East India Company from the early 18th century and colonised by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th century...", ... "by the time it became independent, its status reduced from the worlds richest nation to two of the worlds poorest nations." Very necessary. Very important to describe the British connection, as Hyndman John Sullivan put it, (he was neither Hindu nor an India nationalist, two sources that are not liked here), it was like someone put a sponge in the Ganga and squeezed it in the Thames.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Why all this talk about "golden age"? The term isn't on this page at all, at least currently. Also, it seems to me that this term "golden age" is fraught with problems and is probably best to be avoided. One person's golden age is another's dark age. Pfly (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

If only they would listen, Pfly. It's the usual haranguing by the usual suspects delivered in their inimitably incoherent prose. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

To Pfly: The caution from your and from rgpk's comments have been acknowledged. Though we are here discussing about reliable sources and inclusion of substance that is not reliable/exclusion of substance from reliable sources. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 12:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(od)It is unfortunate that this place is infested with people with poor understanding of Wikipedia policies such as the necessity to be able to work with those whose English may not be as good as the Queens, and not make a great deal of fuss about it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Suddenly this place has become crowded, when confronted with a difficult question. Could some one come up with wp:RS, for British golden age comment, or stop being disruptive? Why is that side-stepped? (2)On the British Empire page we had a peacock term like the sun never set on it, that was kosher, why does Gupta golden age become so controversial? For whom was Gupta golden age a dark age? Let them come forward with their statements. (3)There are 87000 ghits for Gupta empire the golden age of ancient India, please find some for it was the dark age.[18] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

YK, you need to provide a diff of an edit for "British golden age comment". I've scanned the text above but am unable to see one. --rgpk (comment) 16:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yogesh Khandke, instead of your usual muddled showboating, why don't you start with Wikipedia itself and figure out why Golden age of India doesn't have its own page and redirects to the Gupta empire. So, saying that that the Gupta empire was the Golden age of India is the same thing as saying, "the Gupta empire was the Gupta empire." Once you have got "Golden age of India" its own pae, you could figure out why the History of India page is so careful in what it says in its lead:

Much of northern and central India was once again united in the 4th century CE, and remained so for two centuries thereafter, under the Gupta Empire. This period, witnessing a Hindu religious and intellectual resurgence, is known among its admirers as the "Golden Age of India". During the same time, and for several centuries afterwards, southern India, under the rule of the Chalukyas, Cholas, Pallavas, and Pandyas, experienced its own golden age. During this period, aspects of Indian civilization, administration, culture, and religion (Hinduism and Buddhism) spread to much of Asia.

Even junior high school textbooks from India are calling it only the Golden age of Northern India, which is to be contrasted with the Golden age of Southern India. Modern undergraduate and graduate texts as we have already seen, don't use those categories. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Btw, The page Golden Age of India was redircted in December 2010 after Wikipedia voted to remove the category "Golden Ages". Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(1)I don't wish to wrestle with a pig.[19] (2)A newbie can spot the offending edit(s), see his edit after the question, but an administrator feints ignorance!Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I come in? Thank you... I've gone through the debate and would like to bring under your view that the personal views should not be entertained in wikipedia. There are many who might believe there existed a golden age in India under British Culture but more are them who simply don't. Finding a source for proving your thing on net ain't that hard and I don't believe any of historian would ever believe that India's Golden age was under British Empire. So why don't we simple scrap this topic and work in making India article a good one without vandalism. Nitish.game (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

To Yogesh Khandke: Since I am the pig, let me suggest that Shaw, the urban man that he was (with an urban childhood to boot) never had much experience with pigs, so he never considered the possibility that he could lose to the magnificent animal and a few years later his bleached bones could be sticking out of the water like driftwood. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

mmm now we are pigs. Well this pig too hasnt been here for the last 500 edits, but would like to waddle in the mud for this bit. This is what Fowler actually said - "The Guptas never got below the Vindhyas. And the Mughals had their own Golden Age, just as renowned at the Gupta's, as did the Cholas ... as did British India in the late 19th century,". There are RS for saying "British India had a golden age in the late 19th century" -

• They years between 1858... and ..1914 are generally held to be a "golden age" of the british raj ?. (Note the author rubbishes the "generally held" notion in the next line).
• the leading burmese historian writes of the "golden age" of the british raj, 1890-1920
• victoria proclaimed herself queen-empress... and inaugurated the golden age of britain in india
• it is natural that the british should look upon this period as the golden age of their administration

Read Fowler's statement carefully again - he isnt saying "british rule was a golden age for india". he is saying "british india had a golden age". There is a world of a difference between these two. Regents and Fowler have been making this point again and again in the above discussions. The term "golden age" is fraught with difficulties like this and shouldnt be used in the article without sufficient context. Oh and to make it clear, if Fowler had been the one proposing to add "british raj was a golden age of india" to the article, i would be opposing it to. Does that make me less "pigly"?.oink oink--Sodabottle (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

All I am saying is that there are reliable sources that mention so which is now omitted, because editors give reasons to.

As far as 'golden age of British rule' & 'Golden age of Mughal Empire' -- which does not mean Golden Age of India -- why is it mentioned here? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as my views are, going tangential, Gupta Age was not dark age somewhere else, nor is age of Cholas. So I think there is no point saying 'Gupta Age was not a golden age' since others are not considered as Golden Age.

I acknowledge the caution of Golden Age nomenclature, but Gupta Empire and later Chola Empire should not pay for others misdeeds, these comparisons are not proper. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Dark age under British rule.Politicalpandit (talk) 05:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Manmohan Singh's image

Thanks for improving this article so much. Can we have a photo of Manmohan Singh in G8, rather than the one with Putin. Though Russia is an old ally of India, but now India has a much greater presence on the world forum. Something related to G8 would be more appropriate. Please comment.

I will like to thank you all for drastically improving this page. Please accept it. I have one suggestion for Manmohan Singh's photo with Putin.

Can we have a photo of G8 instead; that would be a better representation of India's current relations and standing in the world forums. Please let me know. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the present picture is very apt. USSR and now Russia has been a staunch ally of India while all others have been taking some sides at different times and places. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thisthat I disagree on this. USA, Israel, etc. are India's new allies. Anyways G8 is more reflective of India's global clout. G8 is not country specific. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Israel and USA are India's new allies, so are many others. Though Indian history is quite interesting with some or the other country not aiding India, here and there and aiding India at many other times, which is okay for national interests are supreme for any country. As far as USSR and then Russia is considered, I would like to remind you amongst many other, veto of UN resolution condemning liberation of Goa by USSR. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Learn to live in present, and think about future. India is a very strong nation. Power respects power. If you want you can write another article about India's relation with Russia. In this article if the topic is foreign relations then nothing is more suited than G8 or anyother international forum's image. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If there are no objections raised I will change the image to something from G8 that shown Indian PM with the leaders of G8. Let me know if anyone is interested to see the image. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

For clarity, could you please link the image here on talk page? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The Russian relationship is discussed in the article and has a long standing history for India, therefore it makes sense to have that image as opposed to the "latest development". This was also discussed previously -- Talk:India/Archive 29#Picture of Obama with Singh. —SpacemanSpiff 17:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

A more suitable Himalayan image

The word "Himalayas" evokes an image of tall, snow-clad mountain ranges, the highest in the world. The present image is less appropriate because the mountains shown are not imposing and depict a part of the Himalayas at a northern edge and important today only because of biodiversity and proximity to a contested border. Ladakh is also considered to be Trans-Himalaya and geographically related more to the Tibetan plateau rather than the mountain range itself. Imho the image for Himalayas should depict a snow clad mountain range in a part of India, preferably from a region culturally and religiously important and undisputably identified with "mainstream" India rather than the far north or where the mountain lies partly in Nepal. I propose that we may have one of these instead -

1. Kedar range, behind Kedarnath temple
2. Himalayas near Auli, Nandadevi massif on the left.
3. Nandadevi in all her glory.
4. Panorama

My personal preference is for serial 1.

If someone would like to suggest a better image than those mentioned above - that is most welcome.

AshLin (talk) 07:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the current image isn't the best representation, I can't tell if it's Tso Kar or Tso Moriri, but neither locale actually represents the geography of (even) the Ladakh region, more like specific anomalies in the Ladakh geography leading to its biodiversity. I'm not sure that the other four images are a significant improvement, let me poke around to see if we can get some better images on Flickr. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I too agree with AshLin, and I like his first image. Beautiful and high def. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

How about changing this to a rotation image like we have on the culture section (I also believe we ought to do that with the history images -- Brihadeesvara temple, Mughal image etc, but let's start with the geography one first). IMO, we could have one image of the mountain ranges to the north (see File:Kedartal.jpg for another alternative), one of the coastline, one of the archipelago, one of the rivers -- either their course or origin and one of the Thar desert (I think we have a fairly good set of Jaisalmer images at Commons for this). —SpacemanSpiff 12:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the first and third pictures - very Himalayan! Either should work. Let's not do the rotation thing until we have a larger and stable set of pictures to use. --rgpk (comment) 12:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, the last time we discussed geography images it took a while and didn't exactly get us anywhere. —SpacemanSpiff 05:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

In light of general consensus, if no one objects, I plan to replace the current image with the Kedar range image after 24 hours. AshLin (talk) 07:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the reminder, Fowler&Fowler. AshLin (talk) 11:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

An image for the performing arts section

Request to add an image to the dance section. Since the Northeast of the India is under-represented in images, I would like to use this image of a Manipuri dancer from Flickr which can be imported under a free license. This s better than any of the Commons images. If approved, I will do the needful. AshLin (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

We already have one dance related image in the culture section rotation: File:Nandini Ghosal.jpg (Odissi). I don't mind swapping, but increasing the number of dance images isn't necessary IMO. That said, I think a couple of images on the rotation need to go too. —SpacemanSpiff 11:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi SpacemanSpiff, I could not find the cultural section rotation and I think it has been removed. In the Nandini Ghoshal page, there is no mention of India page. Could you please clarify? AshLin (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the template is not working. AshLin (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, it appears to be working for me -- {{Indian image rotation}}, that's where the Ghosal image is (there's a timing lag on the rotation, so you might have to check again a little later -- see the article at some interval). We currently have two rotations -- Culture and Fauna. Also, I don't think the rotation images show up on the file pages as they have some syntax that's not picked up. Can you check again and comment? I've seen two different images on the culture section today -- Tagore and the Bangalore Shiva. —SpacemanSpiff 12:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is now changed. It now shows Golden Langur & Tagore. I wonder what duration it changes after? AshLin (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It changes, I believe, in repetitive cycles of 9 hours, 9 hours, and 15 hours. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I could make it six hours, in which case, it would change every six hours uniformly. Or, 12 or 24, which too would be uniform. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think your interpretation of the current cycle might be a bit off especially for the fauna bit. I can't seem to decipher that template though. That said, I think reducing the change to even as low as 15 minutes is better IMO than lengthening it, but that's really just a personal preference. —SpacemanSpiff 13:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

:) I think you might be right. I didn't even read the fauna bit. I believe user:Saravask had originally set it up. But he seems to be inactive. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, the images rotated every day(for culture image)/ every hour(for fauna image). In the macro, mod 9/mod 5 signifies number of images (from 0-8 i.e. 9total or from 0-4 i.e. 5total). Whether it is for rotation by the day or hour should not matter much because the expression is perhaps evaluated for every hit. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What you say makes sense for the numbers (9 and 5), but I think the culture image is by hour and the fauna image is by minute, now that I looked at the template again after your info on the numbers. That also explains why I saw the same image twice in culture when I looked at the page within 15 minutes but a different fauna image, and then another image on culture now that I looked after more than an hour later. The change to the template on March 12 appears to have been with this intent. —SpacemanSpiff 15:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

For more clarity, Modular arithmetic. Basically, it gives 'the remainder', thats all. So hour mod 9 is remainder(can be 0to8) when hour (0-23) is divided by 9, and that image is chosen. minute mod 5 is remainder when minute (0-59) is divided by 5 (which can be any number from 0to4) and that image is chosen. According to me. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That explains it, thanks! In which case, the frequency of changes by parameter would be minute > day > hour, and when we have more number of images we should avoid the hour parameter. —SpacemanSpiff 20:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand that, though technically I think it is calculated for every hit regardless. So technically it won't matter at all. What remains therefore is theory. Though I would like to point out that hourly consideration makes images appearing later in the list appear less frequently. For example, hour mod 9 effectively makes images no0-5 appear 3 hours, 7,8&9th for 2 hours. I would suggest considering minute for all so it won't matter much as technically it makes no difference. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant by choosing minute for larger number of images. Eitherways, if there aren't any objections I'll change the parameter to minute, given that this doesn't affect the actual duration of an image but just "evens out" the choices it seems logical. —SpacemanSpiff 20:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Changed parameter to "CURRENTMINUTE". —SpacemanSpiff 13:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Just want to avoid ambiguity.

Saluton,

I don't do a lot of editing here, so please let me know if there was an easier way to do this.

I am locked out of editing the page "India". All i want to do is change:

from "Back in power in 1980, the Congress saw a change in leadership in 1984, when Indira Gandhi was assassinated and succeeded by her son Rajiv Gandhi, who won an easy victory in the general elections later that year."

to "Back in power in 1980, the Congress saw a change in leadership in 1984, when Indira Gandhi was assassinated, and then succeeded by her son Rajiv Gandhi, who won an easy victory in the general elections later that year."

I came to this page after searching for "Indira Gandhi" and that sentence stuck out as implying Rajiv had assassinated her. This would just be an amusing grammar issue, except that there actually is a theory that *Sonja* Gandhi had some reason to kill Indira. So, i think this should be edited, just to be clear.

Sorry if i'm doing this the wrong way. I haven't edited a Wikipedia page in a long time.

trio Trio (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, to someone unacquainted with the topic that's how it'd look. I'd prefer a break in the sentence itself: "...was assassinated; she was succeeded by...". cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

About an issue raised at AN

Hi,

I would like to suggest a few measures as per concerns raised at AN board [| here].

As I understand, the page is amongst the most visited, and as such has somewhat stringent, like may be a few more other pages, standards of including substance.

Of my 'tendentiousness', I would like to point out a few things I observed. As I see it, when I raised certain issues, there is a tendency to not form a consensus. I don't see it as a completely good/bad terminology though( regardless of personal opinion), but if effective it is to ensure that users such as Fowler and more do attend to the queries, with efforts to check the most-clear/least-controversial source, then this should be clearly reflected in some policy on such pages.

What I suggest here, is that may be on this page, there could be a policy where certain changes need not be done for say a 4/5/6/7 days, may be pointed out by admins topicwise. This would give an acknowledgement of some kind that the matter is given some time in which it can be addressed, some breather in general, and avoid 'tendentiousness'/no-consensus-exercises and other unnecessary behavior (and following reactions/re-reaction-cycles) that comes out by default, according to me, in absence of such a policy.

A policy as such could be a kind of guideline for other such pages too, where users like Fowler and others on various topics can give valuable suggestions to the policy about considering what sources on what topics, how, the attitude on it, etc. That would be valuable addition (only)to good practices in general about various topics as well in light of such a policy.

This is a suggestion. One can accept it or reject it. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The changes to the Lead

This refers specifically to the changes in the two words "Annexed, Colonized", in the lead, used to refer to the EIC & direct British rule. I'd like to draw a consensus before such a change can be made, especially considering that this phrase has been there for over 4 years (and has thus "survived the test of time", so to speak). Note that I'm ok to a rephrase, but not the kind that has been made by user: F&F.

I therefore request all to please provide your opinion, suggestions, and lets close this accordingly. I've reverted changed by F&F until then.AJ-India (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think AJ-India is right on process here, as far as I know those were the words used when the lead was discussed, and it wasn't mentioned in the FAR. Talk:India/Archive 31 seems to be the most relevant. However, I think Fowler has made an improvement in the text with this. A company can not annex a body of land, so controlled would be better there. As well as this, India was not really colonised, at least not to the extent that other areas such as Australia and Canada were. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict):It was changed in the FAR, and I thought it was being watched by many people, not least two admins and many FAR regulars. The India page, after all, is not the province of only the India page regulars. There were specific objections in the FAR to that sentence (which quoted "Principle of least surprise"). The sentence in question is:

Gradually annexed by the British East India Company from the early 18th century and colonized by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th century, ...

"Colonized" is POV and inaccurate. Here are a few reasons:

• The history section of this article says that the "colonial period" of Indian history began in the 1820s, which is not the mid-nineteenth century.
• "Colonize" can mean settled by Britons, as Chipmunk says as well, as in the settler colonies of Canada, Australia, or South Africa. That never happened in India.
• "Colonize" is a gradual process; it doesn't happen overnight or "from 1858."
• "Colonize" is linked to the British Raj page, but that page says nothing about "colonization," "colonize," or "colonialism."

"Direct rule," or "direct administration" is widely used by scholars to refer to the period of British rule that began in 1858. Moreover, the British Raj page talks about direct administration in its lead. Similarly, historians refer to the control by the East India Company. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be re-worded with words like "egalitarian" and "philanthropic" rule. There is so much the British did. What say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.25.189 (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, am not disputing the "direct rule" part. Thats pretty well established (post the disolution of EIC, Britain ruled directly). The point is: both "controlled" & "administed" apply to both phases of the British rule: Via EIC, and later the Crown. Both controlled, and both administed. Thus the sentence sounds redundant (as if EIC controlled, and Britain adminstered).

Also, that India was a British Colony, is also pretty well established (see this). Thus, to say India was colonized, isnt a POV, but merely stating a fact. Same applies to the annexing part.AJ-India (talk) 03:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a couple of different meanings to the word colony. One is, as you say, a description for some territories under the rule of different Empires (distinguished from, say, protectorates). Another meaning is that of a settlement, made up of people from one area but established outside their territory. Now when I read something was "colonized", it sounds to me like it was settled by people. On the whole in India, this did not really happen. That is not to say it was not a colony. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Like most words, colony too has multiple meanings. Maybe we can rephrase that sentence, to convey the intended meaning. I think there's scope for simplification.AJ-India (talk) 08:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You are the one who wants to change it. You propose something definite. And no major changes. Just those two words. No one here has an appetite for major discussions. We spent over two months on those, and it came to nothing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually ok with the current version. Its you who changed it. Hence this discussion. So, if I have to suggest a version, it could be "Gradually annexed & administered by the British East India Company from the early 18th century and administered directly by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th century..."AJ-India (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a good resolution. It's accurate and it's clear. (Sorry, we get so many POV warriors on this page, I had thought you were looking to put something else in.) If there's consensus, you can change it to that after a few days, after others have had a chance to weigh in. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Fowler. This is good. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Am glad we have a consensus (amongst us at least).Thanks AJ-India (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Replacing Su-30MKI image with HAL Tejas image

File:LCA Tejas.jpg

The HAL Tejas.

I suggest the replacement of Su-30 MKI image with this beautiful image of HAL Tejas.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Replaced. --rgpk (comment) 16:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Object to the change as per the comment when this was raised by the same user a few weeks ago Talk:India/Archive 34#Replacing Su-30 MKI image with Tejas. MilborneOne (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I oppose as well, per reasons given by MilborneOne in previous discussion. Lynch7 17:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't see particularly controversial to me, but I'm easy either way. (Nice photo - the tejas one.) --rgpk (comment) 17:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If the image is supposed to be placed in Foreign relations and military The su-30MKI image is good but at first place I don't find combining these two things foreign relations & military a very good idea. I suggest what was suggested by Humour Thisthat2011 we should get two different sections on India page. We can talk about that on talk page.

Cheers!!!
Nitish.game (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

What difference does it make - Tejas or SU? Let's drop both and use PSLV or Prithvi. If everyone agrees. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The SU-30 is a good example of co-operation between India and Russia in what is a Foreign relations and military section, the Tejas was home-grown and hasnt really entered service yet. Nothing wrong the Tejas as an example of Indian technology etc but the Su-30 is better suited to foreign relations.

MilborneOne (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed this. I disagree, the Su-30 MKI is basically a SU-30 tailormade for Indian market - no credit to India there. The Tejas represents Indian aerospace industry development, and is notable for that part. If India-Russia cooperation had to be shown, then the BrahMos is the correct example, not Su-30.

I meant: I would disagree slightly.. India is not Russia centric. America is the new ally that Indians trust. Though Russia still supplies major hardware, but Israel, US, France, etc have also proved to be trusted partners. In that sense the nuclear deal between India and US is the biggest gamechanger for India. India should be happy to have US as an ally. There is more people to people contact with US than with any other nation. Let's have something related with US then. Or else Arjun tank or someother home grown technology would be more reflective of present day India. I am wide open to suggestions. Tejas in that way looks more suited, but it is yet to prove itself. Let me know if I am wrong with Tejas yet to prove itself. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that foreign relations and military should be split into two. F&F, what's your take? Nameisnotimportant (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the caption under the HAL Tejas that said it is the world's lightest supersonic fighter. That statement is not correct. The Saab Gripen is a supersonic fighter that weighs almost a ton less. Marshallj25 (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Marshall, source please. From what I know Tejas is lighter than the Gripen. Empty weight of Gripen is 6,800 kg, whereas that of Tejas is 6,560 kg. Tejas weighs 140 kg lesser than the Gripen.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Touchtheskywithglory, can you provide refs for your weight figures? As such Tejas, being a major Indian R&D effort has intrinsic value to be present on the page whether it is the lightest fighter or not. The case made for the Su-30 can be made for the Mirage 2000 or Jaguar also. AshLin (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

[20]Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Any aircraft guy will tell you that comparing just the empty weights of planes makes no sense whatsoever. Especially for a fighter jet, there are loads of other performance parameters (service ceiling, thrust vectoring, rate of climb, turn radius, etc etc. I can go on listing). It is important to comprehensively look at the planes than just considering the empty weight. Lynch7 05:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

True. Can all those comparisons can be listed in that small space? So rather than make comparisons, better to state the factor of Tejas being the lightest fighter aircraft in the world.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Mike for different reasons, whether Tejas is lightest or not is irrelevant, what is important is that it represents an Indian endeavour to develop a world-class fighter indigenously to the extent possible. So cut out the lightest fighter part from the caption and retain the Tejas. Su-30 MKI image does not warrant a place in this article. AshLin (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with AshLin. If it is included, it should be because it is an indigenous development in the Aerospace field. Lynch7 05:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggest a change of caption : "[[File:Lca1.jpg|thumb|The [[HAL Tejas]] is a light supersonic fighter developed by [[Aeronautical Development Agency]] and manufactured by [[Hindustan Aeronautics]] (HAL).<ref>{{citation|url=http://en.rian.ru/world/20110110/162090932.html |title=India gets its first homegrown fighter jet |accessdate=1 April 2009 |author= |date=10 January 2011 |work=RIA Novosti |publisher=}}</ref>]]". Any objections. AshLin (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Now why you want light if you cannot have lightest? if light can be there then surely lightest is not a problem at all. three more letters.Touchtheskywithglory (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support AshLin's proposal. Lynch7 13:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Touchtheskywithglory, I personally have no issue on adding "est" but have no time for the reference-hunting. It could be that some existing fighter in the world may be lighter. As such I'm sure you will agree that Tejas is important as being India's first "successful" attempt at making a modern supersonic fighter, not because its the lightest. However, if you can hunt up the references and show why lightest is a good thing/notable, then my proposed change can be amended to include that, once you get consensus here. Till then, do you have any other objection to the caption change that I suggested? AshLin (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I could proceed to show you theoretically why empty weight is not a very important factor, but until we get some sources saying why empty weight is a notable factor in fighter aircraft design (as AshLin said), any superlatives should be avoided. Lynch7 05:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Categorical statements such as lightest, biggest, first, etc. should be used only with impeccable referencing. I support not saying 'lightest' unless an impeccable reference with a statement that leaves no room for doubt is provided. I like the Tejas image and support its inclusion.--rgpk (comment) 05:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I take it that there are no violent objections (= consensus imho) for the proposed change. Am making the change on the article page. If anyone feels otherwise, feel free to revert but in that case, continue the thread here with your reasons. AshLin (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)